"The social costs of widespread firearm distribution—foremost, the high murder rate in the U.S.—outweigh whatever degree of liberty gun ownership is seen to protect. When the practical consequences of a right becomes counterproductive to society, it has outlived its usefulness."
As commenter Josh says: "It's so ironic that the opponents of gun rights advocate the forcible seizure of arms, which relies on violence...which is the very thing that they claim to want to prevent."
A tip of the boonie hat to Matthew P. for the link.
5 comments:
Uh huh. And how long after the Second is removed for being outdated, will the First (with its five parts), Fourth, Fifth, and the remainder of what's left of the Constitution also be swept into the dustbin of history. I'm not counting the Ninth and Tenth, they've been ignored for far too long by the Gubbment.
B Woodman
III-per
Outlived its usefulness for whom?
Answer that question first, for it will reveal much.
My comment on their page:
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.". --Thomas Jefferson
We now have a government that is- by definition- fascist. Historically, our current situation closely resembles that of pre-WW2 Nazi Germany, around 1933-1934. With the SCOTUS blatantly ruling to dismantle the Constitution piece by piece, our rights will be stripped away, and we will be forced to live under the boot of a tyrant.
It is expressly for this reason that the 2nd Amendment was written; a doomsday scenario. And considering how overtly corrupt and despicable our government now is, the 2A is more relevant now than ever before.
The failure of the author of this article, to understand the plain facts as I have described them, is due to willful ignorance or sheer stupidity. Those of us who have arms understand, and won't be deterred one iota from maintaining our rights.
Mao said "political power comes from the barrel of a gun.". He was right. WE will not give up power over our own lives, our own safety, to such weak and stupid people as the author of this article. You will be sorely disappointed if you choose to test our resolve in this.
(Somehow I doubt they'll publish my response.)
I'm disappointed that neither Kopel nor Volokh, even when given the opportunity, ever mentioned the Battle of Athens. Volokh was willing to concede the entire 'well regulated militia' clause as not relevant today. Kopel didn't help with his 'blah-blah-blah' retort to Dershowitz (although, I'll admit that Dershy deserved it). The Kopel-Volokh team wasn't too bad. I guess I'm just a bit jaded by Kopel's response to me during the Q&A at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in Miami last year. They're lawyers. Smart lawyers, but lawyers nonetheless. So I guess we can only expect so much.
After we restore the founder's republic, we should (loosely) follow Billy's advice: "First, fire all the lawyers." Or maybe not so loosely. ;-)
They determined who 'won' the debate by polling the audience before and after the debates. Whoever increased their percentages by more won. It was 64% for (i.e.: anti-2A), 18% against, 18% undecided before. After the debate it was 74% for, 22% against, so the antis won. In NYC, NY. With a select audience, no doubt. Are we surprised?
"Intelligence Squared" my pasty white one. More like the mathematical inverse of Intelligence. (But wait! Divide by zero error....errrrt....crash.)
I will say that the moderator was quite fair. I remember him correcting the antis on at least two occasions pointing out that Kopel and Volokh were not in any way saying what they were being accused of saying.
This is all a dog and pony show and nothing more. As you, Mike, are fond of pointing out, it is, historically, determined minorities who win in these struggles. Or as Michael Collins is known for saying, "Our greatest weapon is our refusal." In other words, the answer is: NO! Your move, collectivists. Your move.
Looked at it today. You can still note. Online voting is 98% against the motion
"The Constitutional Right To Bear Arms Has Outlived Its Usefulness."
It looks like their handpicked audience was not representative of people who have actually been posed the question.
Post a Comment